One of the disappointing aspects of President Obama’s speech was that the much hyped housing section was little more than a re-warmed proposal from last fall. And that was just a re-working of several earlier failed versions that failed to work. Sadly, this version is unlikely to be any more successful.
While details are lacking, the President promised to allow homeowners to refinance mortgages in a way that would reduce their payments by about $3,000 a year. Earlier, there had been speculation that he would announce a way for homeowners to have the amount of their loan reduced, but after the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) noted that such a plan would cost taxpayers an additional $100 billion in subsidies to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, that plan seems to have been dropped.
Housing remains a serious problem for our economy, but no matter what the President wishes, no federal program is likely to fix the problem.
Thank you so much for your time. I know how valuable it is. I also appreciate the fine family that you have and your committment as a father and a husband.
Sincerely,
Everette Hatcher III, 13900 Cottontail Lane, Alexander, AR 72002, ph 501-920-5733, lowcostsqueegees@yahoo.com
MESSAGE INTRODUCTION
Apologetics is positive and negative. It sets forth the reasons for belief, and it tears down the opposing arguments. But if you can’t argue anyone into the kingdom, why do it in the first place? Let’s find out from Dr. Sproul.
LEARNING OBJECTIVES
1. To understand the offensive and defensive sides of apologetics.
2. To understand the difference between proof and persuasion.
3. To learn to appreciate and rely on the Scriptures and the rich tradition of apologetics as we confront the challenges of today.
QUOTATION AND THOUGHTS
Obstreperous (adj.): noisily resisting control or defying commands [from Latin, obstreperous, noisy]
St. Thomas Aquinas (1225—1274): Scholastic philosopher and theologian, born in Roccasecca, Italy. Most significant pre-Trent Catholic scholar other than Augustine. Three years after his death, a number of his views were condemned by Catholic authorities in Paris and Oxford, but in 1323, he was canonized by Pope John XXII, and in 1879, Pope Leo XIII issued an encyclical commending all his works to Catholic scholars.
LECTURE OUTLINE
I. Apologetics: Positive and Negative
a) We must state our position, positively affirming what the Christian church believes, if we are challenged. This can require much patience. b. We should also correct or tear down the false assumptions and irrationality present in other systems.
II. Where does apologetics start?
a) Some, like R.C., argue that apologetics starts with the existence of God.
Others say that you start with Scripture, or with history.
b) All apologetics systems that have any merit must affirm the depravity of man and the necessity of the Holy Spirit’s work in conversion.
III. Why do apologetics?
a) To obey the Scriptures—see 1 Peter 3:15.
b) To shame obstreperous non-Christians, as John Calvin stated.
c) “The fool has said in his heart, “There is no God.”
d) Christians should not surrender rationality and scientific inquiry to the secular world. The commonsense tools of learning can be used to corroborate the truth claims of Christianity.
IV. Proof and Persuasion
a) Proof can be offered, even irrefutable proof, but it does not necessarily lead to a change in belief.
b) The Holy Spirit causes the acquiescence into the soundness of the argument for the truth claims of the Christian faith. The role of the apologist is not persuasion, but proof.
c) Illustration: Charlie the Skeptic
d) “Those convinced against their will hold their first opinion still.”
e) While we are not able to change minds, we are able to give a faithful defense and thus add credibility to the Christian faith.
President Obama says that he wants even more fraud laws and penalties on the books for financial institutions. Even putting aside all the new crimes in Dodd-Frank, there are already numerous laws prohibiting fraud on the federal books. Indeed, back in 1999 Professor Ellen Podgor counted 92 uses of some form of the word “fraud” in federal criminal law! As Paul Larkin has noted, Congress continues to pile on criminal laws regarding fraud, going as far as to propose that there should be an additional fraud law just for maple syrup. Former Attorney General Ed Meese noted this in his Congressional testimony last month, asking “Will we, as a society, not be taken seriously about fighting fraud unless we double, triple, and quadruple the number of iterations of this crime?”
For Obama, the answer is a resounding, albeit ridiculous, “Yes.”
__________________________
More laws on the bank industry is not the answer.
Thank you so much for your time. I know how valuable it is. I also appreciate the fine family that you have and your committment as a father and a husband.
Sincerely,
Everette Hatcher III, 13900 Cottontail Lane, Alexander, AR 72002, ph 501-920-5733, lowcostsqueegees@yahoo.com
Lionel Messi momentarily overtook Cristiano Ronaldo as the top scorer in La Liga this season with a hat trick against Malaga on Sunday. Each of his goals was tremendous (the first was a header from considerable distance for someone who has been accused of not being able to use his head), but his third — Barcelona‘s final goal in the 4-1 win — was one of his trademark sublime runs topped off by a delicate finish while skipping over a challenge.
For former Newcastle/Ft. Lauderdale midfielder and current eccentric television commentator/professional Barcelona admirer Ray Hudson, this was all too much. So the only description he could offer of the goal was a gutteral yell you might expect to hear from someone with about a million volts coursing through their body. And, in its own way, it was perfect.
Once he calmed down a bit and changed his pants, Hudson sang Messi’s praises in his typically nonsensical way — something about Dr. Spock being “out of his Vulcan mind.” Then he hilariously topped it off by saying Messi was “running like he’s got a food mixer down his shorts.”
In remarks on the Senate floor today, U.S. Senator Bob Corker, R-Tenn., expressed disappointment in President Obama’s 2012 budget proposal, saying it displayed a “lack of urgency” to get federal spending under control. Corker has introduced the CAP Act to dramatically cut federal spending over the next decade.
__________________________-
We are now on a fiscally irresponsible path here in the USA with the federal government spending 25% of GDP and having 4 straight budgets with over 1 trillion dollars a year in debt. That means our debt is now almost 16 trillion instead of the 9.9 trillion just 4 years ago. Senator Boozman seems to be on the right track.
WASHINGTON D.C. – U.S. Senator John Boozman (R-AR) took to the Senate floor today to urge America to reject President Obama’s reckless budget proposal and focus on passing a fiscally responsible budget.
“When you get down to it, President Obama was never serious about his pledge to cut the deficit in half by the end of his first term. Like every budget this administration has proposed, this one was written with red ink. The deficit spending proposed in the President’s FY13 budget topped a trillion once again. This is an unsustainable rate of spending,” Boozman said in his speech.
The full text of the speech can be found here:
Madam President: On Monday morning, the country was presented with President Obama’s budget proposal for the fiscal year.
If you were to only listen to the President and his surrogates, you would think this proposal is great for the nation.
The acting budget director says the President’s budget “makes the right investments.”
The head of the President’s National Economic Council used a litany of sports metaphors to make the case that “the president has very much stepped up to the plate.”
And the President himself said his budget makes “some tough choices in order to put this country back on a more sustainable fiscal path.”
The reason they are so excited about this proposal is that, they believe, in an election year, they have offered every ally something to woe their support. This budget proposal truly does try to be everything for everyone. The problem is, however, no one wins with it.
When you scratch the surface of this proposal, the shine quickly wears off.
The deficit reduction claims that the administration throws out to defend this proposal don’t hold water.
You can’t claim $1 trillion in cuts that Congress pushed through during the debt ceiling debate as new cuts.
Nor can you say with all honesty that $850 billion in war savings are real cuts. This money was never going to be spent in the first place.
When you get down to it, President Obama was never serious about his pledge to cut the deficit in half by the end of his first term. Like every budget this administration has proposed, this one was written with red ink. The deficit spending proposed in the President’s FY13 budget topped a trillion once again. This is an unsustainable rate of spending.
On Monday, the President’s team was doing a full-scale PR push for this budget. At one point during the rollout, a reporter asked the President’s top economic aides whatever happened to that pledge the President had made to the American people.
Gone from their answers was the tough talk of making “difficult decisions” and facing “challenges we’ve long neglected.” Instead, his advisors were left to pull out the old standby excuse that the President and his team simply “didn’t realize how bad” the economy actually is when they first took over.
Clearly, they still don’t realize it now.
Not only does the President’s budget ignore the very real disarray our fiscal house is in, it makes the mess worse.
Since President Obama took office, our national debt has shot up 42%. Under President Obama’s watch, the national debt has jumped to a jaw-dropping $15.1 trillion.
This is the fourth year in a row that the budget would run a deficit above $1.29 trillion. When it comes to fiscal responsibility, this is not a record to be proud of.
America deserves better than a collection of tax hikes, phony savings and additional debt.
The President’s budget proposal is bad for seniors as it takes no steps to protect and strengthen Medicare and Social Security, will hurt chances of an economic recovery through tax hikes and will add $11 trillion more to our already staggering national debt in a 10-year period.
We cannot continue to keep going down this road. America’s fiscal health is at stake. We’ve got to stop spending more than we take in. If not, we risk going the direction of Greece, Portugal, Italy and other European countries that have spent their way to the brink of default.
As we head into the final year of President Obama’s first term, we have already witnessed the most rapid increase in debt under any U.S. President. With our national debt already the size of our entire economy, the President has proposed a budget that calls for hundreds of billions of dollars in new spending.
If we followed through with this budget, deficit spending would exceed $600 billion every year but one over the next decade. Our national debt would grow to $18.7 trillion.
President Obama would like you to believe that if we simply raise taxes we can solve all of our fiscal problems. A recent CBO report shows that spending is the primary cause of our fiscal crisis and supports spending cuts rather than tax increases to reverse this trend. But the President is holding steadfast to his desire to raise taxes as an answer.
The President’s failed policy of borrowing, spending and taxing is just what the CBO is warning us to avoid. It hasn’t worked in the past and it won’t work in the future.
Washington does not have a revenue problem, it has a spending problem. The fact that President Obama still believes we can tax our way out of the problem reveals a huge disconnect with the American people.
Madam President, when it comes to our country’s budget, Americans have a right to expect accountability, honesty and responsibility. This proposal has none of those.
If President Obama refuses to acknowledge and address the very real economic crisis facing our country, let’s show America that we will. We can do so by rejecting the White House’s proposal and passing a responsible budget that puts our nation back on a fiscally responsible path.
A new video from the Center for Freedom and Prosperity gives four reasons why big government is bad fiscal policy.
I particularly like the explanation of how government spending undermines growth by diverting labor and capital from the productive sector of the economy.
Some cynics, though, say that it is futile to make arguments for good policy. They claim that politicians make bad fiscal decisions because of short-term considerations such as vote buying and raising campaign cash and that they don’t care about the consequences. There’s a lot of truth to this “public choice” analysis, but I don’t think it explains everything. Maybe I’m an optimist, but I think we would have better fiscal policy if more lawmakers, journalists, academics, and others grasped the common-sense arguments presented in this video.
This Economics 101 video from the Center for Freedom and Prosperity explains that excessive government spending undermines prosperity by diverting resources from the productive sector of the economy. Moreover, the two main ways of financing government — taxes and borrowing — cause additional economic damage. www.freedomandprosperity.org
____________________
And even if the cynics are right, we are more likely to have good policy if the American people more fully understand the damaging impact of excessive government. This is because politicians almost always will do what is necessary to stay in office. So if they think the American people are upset about wasteful spending and paying close attention, the politicians will be less likely to upset voters by funneling money to special interests.
A Clean Energy Standard Would Throttle Economy – Romina Boccia
During last year’s SOTU, the President set a target for a Clean Energy Standard of 80 percent by 2035. This year, the President once again called for a CES, only this time, less ambitiously.
[…] there’s no reason why Congress shouldn’t at least set a clean energy standard that creates a market for innovation.
The issue is that a clean energy standard would throttle economic growth, and that is why Congress has rightly not put one in place. One way of converting existing shares of “dirty energy” into clean energy is by cutting energy from conventional sources. Environmental Protection Agency regulations are already well on their way to cut existing coal capacity by forcing the premature shutdown of older plants with burdensome compliance rules. No matter how many times the President lauds the supposed benefits of clean energy investments and green jobs, the truth remains that government-forced cuts in conventional energy use throttle economic growth and green jobs are a fallacy.
Instead of wasting taxpayer dollars by lavishing subsidies on select renewable energy sources and driving up energy prices by mandating their usage, Congress should reduce artificial barriers to domestic energy production and create a level playing field so that energy providers compete on their merits.
Costly New Regulations –James Gattuso
President Obama tonight made the startling claim that he had ”approved fewer regulations in the first three years of my presidency than my Republican predecessor did in his.” This claim is more than a little bit misleading. According to the Government Accountability Office, it is true that fewer total rules were issued during this Administration than during that of George W. Bush. But that counts many administrative actions of no real significance. When you look at major rules – those with $100 million or more in economic impact, a very different picture emerges. Some 189 of these costly rules have been adopted in the past three years, compared to 153 during George Bush’s first three years. That’s a 23 percent increase in red tape. So much for regulatory restraint.
This by the way, isn’t the first time that the Obama Administration has been caught playing with the numbers on regulation. As reported by FactCheck.org last year, Cass Sunstein, the president’s “regulatory czar,” presented a “distorted view” of this president’s regulatory record compared to his predecessor. In fact, the organization’s report concluded (citing research by Heritage among others) the Obama Administration has imposed far more in costs on the country than his precedessor had at the same point in his tenure.
The President also cited efforts to reduce unnecessary regulation, claiming some 500 reforms under his belt. That would be welcome news, if true, but the relief provided by these moves is only a small sliver of the new costs imposed. Virtually none are even considered “major.”
No one wants to abolish all regulation. But, as the president said again tonight, many are unnecessary and too costly. But the president has added to, not reduced, the problem.
Obama’s Policies Must Not Sting the Economy into Lethargy – J.D. Foster
The story goes that a scorpion once needed to cross a river, but had no way across. Along came a fox who was going to swim across and the scorpion asked if he could ride on the fox’s back. The fox said no, because the scorpion would sting him and they’d both die. The scorpion answered that he didn’t want to die, and so the fox was safe. Sufficiently assured, the fox let the scorpion on her back and she began to swim across.
At first, everything went well. But then, as they reached the midpoint of the stream, the scorpion suddenly tensed up and stung the fox on her back, just as she had feared. As she began to black out the fox cried out, “Why did you do that? Now we’re both going to die.” The scorpion sighed, “I know, but a scorpion’s got to do what a scorpion’s got to do”.
In listening to President Obama talk about the need for a stronger economy and more jobs in one breathe, and the need to raise taxes on saving, on investment, on job creators, and others of higher incomes, in his next breathe, one is reminded of the scorpion.
It is a simple and inescapable truth that one does not get more saving, more investment, more new businesses, more entrepreneurship, more economic growth, by taxing these things more. But this simple truth seems to lie outside the permissible realm of the President’s ideology. Fortunately, the economy is better protected against President Obama’s proclivity to sting the economy into sustained lethargy than was the poor fox. The President was largely unsuccessful in 2011 in pushing his job destroying agenda through the Congress, and all indications are he will be no more successful in 2012.
______________________
Excessive regulations will hurt our businesses. Instead of bragging about the slow growth of regulations you should cut regulations to allow our companies to thrive.
Thank you so much for your time. I know how valuable it is. I also appreciate the fine family that you have and your committment as a father and a husband.
Sincerely,
Everette Hatcher III, 13900 Cottontail Lane, Alexander, AR 72002, ph 501-920-5733, lowcostsqueegees@yahoo.com
I was very happy with Arkansas’ schedule versus other SEC schools. The obvious advantage is that Arkansas has Alabama and LSU coming to Fayetteville to play while Alabama has to go to both LSU and Arkansas.
The disadvantage that teams in the west have is simple. They may be a top 5 team in the nation (like Arkansas was last year) and still lose two games during the year.
However, it is my view that the teams in the SEC East have a chance to go through the year with only one lost. The Vols have both Alabama and Florida at home and they avoided playing Arkansas in 2012 when the new SEC Schedule was drawn up.
Sept. 8: WESTERN KENTUCKY
Sept. 15: at Arkansas
Sept. 22: FLORIDA ATLANTIC
Sept. 29: OLE MISS
Oct. 13: at Missouri
Oct. 20: at Tennessee
Oct. 27: MISSISSIPPI STATE
Nov. 3: at LSU
Nov. 10: TEXAS A&M
Nov. 17: WESTERN CAROLINA
Nov. 24: AUBURN
(Associated Press)
Below is a complete list of football opponents and dates for 2012:
Date
Opponent
Location
Sept. 1
Jacksonville State
Fayetteville
Sept. 8
Louisiana-Monroe
Little Rock
Sept. 15
Alabama
Fayetteville
Sept. 22
Rutgers
Fayetteville
Sept. 29
Texas A&M
TBD
Oct. 6
at Auburn
Auburn, Ala.
Oct. 13
Kentucky
Fayetteville
Oct. 20
Bye
—
Oct. 27
Ole Miss
Little Rock
Nov. 3
Tulsa
Fayetteville
Nov. 10
at So. Carolina
Columbia, S.C.
Nov. 17
at Miss. State
Starkville, Miss.
Nov. 24
LSU
Fayetteville
ArkansasSports360.com will update this post
Aug 31 in Atlanta against NC State
Sept. 8: GEORGIA STATE
Sept. 15: FLORIDA
Sept. 22: AKRON
Sept. 29: at Georgia
Oct. 13: at Mississippi State
Oct. 20: ALABAMA
Oct. 27: at South Carolina
Nov. 3: TROY
Nov. 10: MISSOURI
Nov. 17: at Vanderbilt
Nov. 24: KENTUCKY
(US Presswire)
Michael Tanner is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute and author of Leviathan on the Right: How Big-Government Conservatism Brought Down the Republican Revolution.
In a town where bipartisan budget chicanery has been raised to an art form, President Obama’s latest budget proposal should be hailed as the da Vinci of fiscal obfuscation.
The president claims that his budget proposal reduces debt by $4 trillion over the next 10 years, combining $2.4 trillion in spending cuts with $1.6 trillion in tax hikes. Almost none of that is true.
Let’s start with the idea that the president’s budget would reduce the debt. That is true only using Washington math, under which a smaller increase is actually a decrease. In reality, the president’s budget adds $6.7 trillion to the national debt over the next 10 years, bringing it to nearly $25.5 trillion by 2022. That would be more than 100 percent of our GDP.
The president’s budget is dishonest and irresponsible.
And those spending cuts? The president actually counts $681 billion in cuts that were agreed to last year as part of the deal to raise the debt ceiling. Shouldn’t there be some sort of statute of limitations for how long you can claim credit for cuts that you have already made? And it should probably be shorter for cuts that you fought against every step of the way. The president also counts as a cut the $741 billion we will save from not occupying Iraq over the next 10 years, and from not being in Afghanistan a decade from now. Considering that we were never going to spend that money in the first place, that seems like slightly dishonest accounting. After all, think of all the savings we can claim by not invading Syria. And, finally, $595 billion of the claimed budget cuts is actually interest savings resulting from not having to borrow for the other phony cuts.
On the other hand, the president’s budget does include plenty of new spending. For example, there is $476 billion in new spending over 10 years for transportation projects, including the president’s favorite boondoggle, “high-speed rail.” There are also the usual bailouts for profligate state governments and teachers’ unions, including $30 billion to build more schools and $30 billion to hire teachers. Another stimulus anyone?
Overall, the president would increase federal spending from $3.8 trillion in 2013 to $5.82 trillion in 2022. That might not be as big an increase there might otherwise be, but in no way can it be called a cut.
The president isn’t even honest about his tax proposals. In the speech announcing his budget plan, President Obama devoted several paragraphs to a renewed push for the so-called Buffett rule, a new 30 percent minimum tax on the rich, based on the misleading claim that Warren Buffett pays a lower tax rate than his secretary. There is only one small problem: The president’s budget does not actually include any revenue from the Buffett rule. In fact, the budget provides no clue as to when or how such a tax might be implemented. The Buffett Rule isn’t even listed in the document’s summary of revenues and outlays. A cynic might believe that the Buffett Rule has more to do with campaign rhetoric than an actual budget plan.
Instead, what the budget does contain is a renewed call for tax increases on people and small businesses making as little as $200,000 per year. In addition, there’s the usual panoply of tax hikes on energy products, businesses, investment, and pretty much anything else the president can think of. The budget also helpfully points out that 2013 is the year in which most of the new taxes under Obamacare will take effect. Overall, the president would increase tax revenue to 20.1 percent of GDP. That’s a huge increase from the current 15.4 percent, and higher than the post–World War II average of 18.0 percent. Tax increases of that magnitude cannot help but slow economic growth and job creation.
But even if the president were to get every penny of the tax hikes he wants, his budget would never balance. The closest he would ever come would be in 2018, when the deficit would be only $575 billion. After that, deficits begin rising again, reaching $704 billion by 2022.
Fortunately for the president, he stops counting after 2022, about the time that the costs of entitlements such as Medicare and Social Security really begin to kick in, and his proposed budget does almost nothing to reform these troubled programs. One only has to look at the upward trajectory of both spending and taxes at the end of the budget window to see that president’s budget leaves us on the road to future bankruptcy.
Appearing last Sunday on Meet the Press, the president’s chief of staff — and former budget director — Jack Lew, declared that “The time for austerity is not now.” Judging by the president’s budget proposal, it’s not ever.
Over the past several years, President Barack Obama has repeatedly claimed that America is not a Christian nation. He asserted that while a U. S. Senator, 1 repeated it as a presidential candidate, 2 and on a recent presidential trip to Turkey announced to the world that Americans “do not consider ourselves a Christian nation.” 3 (He made that announcement in Turkey because he said it was “a location he said he chose to send a clear message.” 4 ) Then preceding a subsequent trip to Egypt, he declared that America was “one of the largest Muslim countries in the world” 5 (even though the federal government’s own statistics show that less than one-percent of Americans are Muslims. 6
The President’s statements were publicized across the world but received little attention in the American media. Had they been carried here, the President might have been surprised to learn that nearly two-thirds of Americans currently consider America to be a Christian nation 7 and therefore certainly might have taken exception with his remarks. But regardless of what today’s Americans might think, it is unquestionable that four previous centuries of American leaders would definitely take umbrage with the President’s statements.
Modern claims that America is not a Christian nation are rarely noticed or refuted today because of the nation’s widespread lack of knowledge about America’s history and foundation. To help provide the missing historical knowledge necessary to combat today’s post-modern revisionism, presented below will be some statements by previous presidents, legislatures, and courts (as well as by current national Jewish spokesmen) about America being a Christian nation. These declarations from all three branches of government are representative of scores of others and therefore comprise only the proverbial “tip of the iceberg.”
.
American Jewish Leaders Agree with History
Jewish leaders, although firmly committed to their own faith, understand that by defending Christianity they are defending what has provided them their own religious liberty in America. For example, Jeff Jacoby, a Jewish columnist at the Boston Globe explains:
This is a Christian country – it was founded by Christians and built on broad Christian principles. Threatening? Far from it. It is in precisely this Christian country that Jews have known the most peaceful, prosperous, and successful existence in their long history. 64
Aaron Zelman (a Jewish author and head of a civil rights organization) similarly declares:
[C]hristian America is the best home our people have found in 2,000 years. . . . [T]his remains the most tolerant, prosperous, and safest home we could be blessed with. 65
Dennis Prager, a Jewish national columnist and popular talkshow host, warns:
If America abandons its Judeo-Christian values basis and the central role of the Jewish and Christian Bibles (its Founders’ guiding text), we are all in big trouble, including, most especially, America’s non-Christians. Just ask the Jews of secular Europe.66
Prager further explained:
I believe that it is good that America is a Christian nation. . . . I have had the privilege of speaking in nearly every Jewish community in America over the last 30 years, and I have frequently argued in favor of this view. Recently, I spoke to the Jewish community of a small North Carolina city. When some in the audience mentioned their fear of rising religiosity among Christians, I asked these audience-members if they loved living in their city. All of them said they did. Is it a coincidence, I then asked, that the city you so love (for its wonderful people, its safety for your children, its fine schools, and its values that enable you to raise your children with confidence) is a highly Christian city? Too many Americans do not appreciate the connection between American greatness and American Christianity. 67
Don Feder, a Jewish columnist and long time writer for the Boston Herald, similarly acknowledges:
Clearly this nation was established by Christians. . . . As a Jew, I’m entirely comfortable with the concept of the Christian America. 68The choice isn’t Christian America or nothing, but Christian America or a neo-pagan, hedonistic, rights-without-responsibilities, anti-family, culture-of-death America. As an American Jew. . . . [I] feel very much at home here. 69
In fact, Feder calls on Jews to defend the truth that America is a Christian Nation:
Jews – as Jews – must oppose revisionist efforts to deny our nation’s Christian heritage, must stand against the drive to decouple our laws from Judeo-Christian ethics, and must counter attacks on public expressions of the religion of most Americans – Christianity. Jews are safer in a Christian America than in a secular America. 70
Michael Medved, a Jewish national talkshow host and columnist, agrees that America is indeed a Christian nation:
The framers may not have mentioned Christianity in the Constitution but they clearly intended that charter of liberty to govern a society of fervent faith, freely encouraged by government for the benefit of all. Their noble and unprecedented experiment never involved a religion-free or faithless state but did indeed presuppose America’s unequivocal identity as a Christian nation. 71
Burt Prelutsky, a Jewish columnist for the Los Angeles Times (and a freelance writer for the New York Times, Washington Times, Sports Illustrated, and other national publications) and a patriotic Jewish American, gladly embraces America as a Christian nation and even resents the secularist post-modern attack on national Christian celebrations such as Christmas:
I never thought I’d live to see the day that Christmas would become a dirty word. . . .How is it, one well might ask, that in a Christian nation this is happening? And in case you find that designation objectionable, would you deny that India is a Hindu country, that Turkey is Muslim, that Poland is Catholic? That doesn’t mean those nations are theocracies. But when the overwhelming majority of a country’s population is of one religion, and most Americans happen to be one sort of Christian or another, only a darn fool would deny the obvious. . . . This is a Christian nation, my friends. And all of us are fortunate it is one, and that so many millions of Americans have seen fit to live up to the highest precepts of their religion. It should never be forgotten that, in the main, it was Christian soldiers who fought and died to defeat Nazi Germany and who liberated the concentration camps. Speaking as a member of a minority group – and one of the smaller ones at that – I say it behooves those of us who don’t accept Jesus Christ as our savior to show some gratitude to those who do, and to start respecting the values and traditions of the overwhelming majority of our fellow citizens, just as we keep insisting that they respect ours. Merry Christmas, my friends. 72
Orthodox Rabbi Daniel Lapin of the Jewish Policy Center unequivocally declares
[I] understand that I live . . . in a Christian nation, albeit one where I can follow my faith as long as it doesn’t conflict with the nation’s principles. The same option is open to all Americans and will be available only as long as this nation’s Christian roots are acknowledged and honored. 73
In fact, with foreboding he warns:
Without a vibrant and vital Christianity, America is doomed, and without America, the west is doomed. Which is why I, an Orthodox Jewish rabbi, devoted to Jewish survival, the Torah, and Israel am so terrified of American Christianity caving in. 74God help Jews if America ever becomes a post-Christian society! Just think of Europe! 75
— — — ◊ ◊ ◊ — — —
President Obama’s declaration that Americans “do not consider ourselves a Christian nation” is a repudiation of the declarations of the national leaders before him and is an unabashed attempt at historical revisionism. Of such efforts, Chief Justice William Rehnquist wisely observed, “no amount of repetition of historical errors . . . can make the errors true.” 76
Americans must now decide whether centuries of presidents, congresses, and courts are correct or whether President Obama is, but historical fact does not change merely because the President declares it.
The best antidote to the type of revisionism embodied by President Obama’s statement is for citizens (1) to know the truth of America’s history and (2) share that truth with others.
Picture Credits:
p. 2, “John Marshall,” Library of Congress, Prints & Photographs Division, Theodor Horydczak Collection, LC-H814-T-C01-518-A; p. 4, “Thomas Jefferson,” Independence National Historical Park; p. 7, “Joseph Story,” The Collection of the Supreme Court of the United States (Artist: George P.A. Healy); “John McLean,” The Collection of the Supreme Court of the United States (Artist: Charles Bird King); “David Brewer,” Library of Congress.
73. Daniel Lapin, America’s Real War (Oregon: Multnomah Publishers, 1999), p. 116. (Return)
74. Rabbi Daniel Lapin, “A Rabbi’s Call to American Christians – Wake Up! You’re Under Attack,” End Time Prophetic Division, January 19, 2007 (at:http://www.etpv.org/2007/acwuyua.html).(Return)
Modern claims that America is not a Christian nation are rarely noticed or refuted today because of the nation’s widespread lack of knowledge about America’s history and foundation. To help provide the missing historical knowledge necessary to combat today’s post-modern revisionism, presented below will be some statements by previous presidents, legislatures, and courts (as well as by current national Jewish spokesmen) about America being a Christian nation. These declarations from all three branches of government are representative of scores of others and therefore comprise only the proverbial “tip of the iceberg.”
declares:
would become a dirty word. . . .How is it, one well might ask, that in a Christian nation this is happening? And in case you find that designation objectionable, would you deny that India is a Hindu country, that Turkey is Muslim, that Poland is Catholic? That doesn’t mean those nations are theocracies. But when the overwhelming majority of a country’s population is of one religion, and most Americans happen to be one sort of Christian or another, only a darn fool would deny the obvious. . . . This is a
Christian nation, my friends. And all of us are fortunate it is one, and that so many millions of Americans have seen fit to live up to the highest precepts of their religion. It should never be forgotten that, in the main, it was Christian soldiers who fought and died to defeat Nazi Germany and who liberated the concentration camps. Speaking as a member of a minority group – and one of the smaller ones at that – I say it behooves those of us who don’t accept Jesus Christ as our savior to show some gratitude to those who do, and to start respecting the values and traditions of the overwhelming majority of our fellow citizens, just as we keep insisting that they respect ours. Merry Christmas, my friends. 
is a repudiation of the declarations of the national leaders before him and is an unabashed attempt at historical revisionism. Of such efforts, Chief Justice William Rehnquist wisely observed, “no amount of repetition of historical errors . . . can make the errors true.” 
The Daily Hatch 